Speciesism: Alive and Well

By Edward S. Duvin

Speciesism: the belief in the inherent superiority of one species over
another.
To many of us, fighting this bias is the principal reason we became
involved in the animal liberation movement, but this quest for a larger
vision of family has yet to take hold among our own ranks – much less the
public.

The continuing debate over companion animals is a frightening example of
our movement’s propensity to engage in selective morality, applying
different standards to various species. Billions of farm animals suffer
terribly each year, but no one would suggest that our movement take over
meat-packing plants to operate them more humanely. Instead, we use our
energy to vigorously protest the meat-based agriculture system that injures
nonhumans and humans alike. With companion animals, however, society uses
and abuses them for profit and pleasure, and our movement obligingly
operates the slaughterhouses to dispose of the "throwaways."

Instead of recognizing our movement’s historical and contemporary role in
this holocaust, many leaders continue to rationalize it on the basis of a
"humane" death being preferable to a "miserable" life – further arguing that
we are best able to provide this "merciful" end. Desperate humans are
grievously suffering by the tens of millions all over the world, but who can
imagine relief agencies endorsing systematic euthanasia as an acceptable
policy. A vastly different ethic applies for companion animals, however, and
most of our movement remains silent.

The key word is "suffering," as a generation of humane leaders were
taught that any act – even killing millions of healthy beings – was
compassionate if, in their infinite wisdom, it prevented further suffering.
To buffer this arrogant and anthropomorphic position, they label those who
philosophically and ethically challenge them as insensitive to animals
starving or spending years in a cage.

Let no one think that I’m embracing animal "collectors," as these
troubled individuals are unable to take proper care of themselves – let
alone other beings; however, when Bentham posed the crucial question as to
whether animals can suffer, he hardly had mass killing in mind as an
antidote to prevent that suffering!

I have written ad infinitum that the salient issue is not suffering, but a
deadly form of human ignorance that presumes "killing them kindly" is
preferable to what we all face: a life fraught with uncertainties, grave
risks, and anguish – as none of us escapes alive from this earth. All
sentient beings – both wild and domesticated – suffer interminably and were
we to presume that suffering is the preeminent criterion for living or
dying, then the human species would vanish in a fortnight. As Pope Leo XIII
reminded us, "To suffer and to endure is the lot of humanity."

No sane person wants to see humans or nonhumans suffer – least of all
those of us in life-affirming movements – and certainly there comes a time,
such as with the incurably ill, when many people believe euthanasia is a
desirable option … myself among them. However, that is fundamentally
different from one species determining the fate of another species by a
standard it does not apply to itself.

Deciding that death for other beings is preferable to a risk-filled life
is not euthanasia in its traditional form, but rather a lethal manifestation
of speciesism that projects our own fears and values onto another species,
and then proclaims – as though we were omniscient gods – that death is our
loving "gift" to them.

We have no right to condemn healthy companion animals based on our
limited understanding of their realities, as our mission should be exactly
the same as children’s advocates: Establish more temporary safe havens, find
additional permanent homes, and, most importantly, develop programs that
reduce the number of homeless.

Do countless children suffer for many years trapped in overcrowded and
substandard orphanages? Of course, as do refugees and millions upon millions
of other displaced people, and this suffering is a horrendous tragedy.
However, compassionate people seek to remedy these problems through
addressing the fundamental causes, not killing the victims – and that’s what
our movement should have been doing since Bergh founded the first SPCA in
1866.

If any of our movement’s leaders were locked in a tiny cell for many
months, facing a precarious future, what would they prefer for themselves
and their loved ones: a merciful death or enduring the terror and suffering
in hopes of being released? Is there any doubt that, regardless of the
risks, they would take any chance to survive over a quick and certain death
– the same chance so readily denied to millions of homeless companion
animals? Schweitzer’s "will-to-live," which exists in all life forms, is
being desecrated by our movement in the name of "kindness."

A recent issue of the leading shelter publication spared no effort in
denigrating progressive programs to support feral cats. The thrust of this
dogmatic criticism was that euthanasia is preferable to neuter-and-release
programs, claiming such programs expose ferals to the risk of "terrifying
lives and tragic deaths." Here again, we see the "kill, kill, kill"
mentality – arrogantly presuming that certain death is a kinder fate for
ferals than uncertain life. How ironic, as Thoreau pointed out, that the
most desperate lives are lived quietly by humans, and yet no one is
euthanizing us for our own protection!

The editor-in-chief of Animals’ Voice magazine wrote the following in Volume
3, Number 5: "So shame is what we feel. Shame for having taken so long to
recognize our own failure, as an animal rights publication, in accepting the
companion animal plight as our highest priority of animal issues: it’s the
only one we can guarantee will end because we – animal defenders – are the
ones doing it."

Shame is also what I feel … shame for being part of a movement that
passively tolerates the institutionalized slaughter of healthy and precious
beings – and then proudly defends the slaughter by asserting "it’s for their
own good." The killing is clearly not for their good, but rather a means for
our movement and the public to avoid responsibility for ending
overpopulation. Mass killing "manages" an animal control problem for
society, but only a morally bankrupt movement would participate in this
madness.

Yes, progress has been made the last few years, but at an agonizingly slow
pace. Protest, petition, do whatever you can to pressure status quo humane
societies and SPCA's to say, "Enough! We categorically reject the practice
of loving our friends to death." Our society will never stop the murderous
breeding until we raise the price of that breeding by refusing to act as
executioners. If we are not willing to take some risks for life, then this
movement is a pale shadow of its noble rhetoric. Healthy companion animals
deserve more from us than "gentle" deaths, and those who continue to
rationalize "killing them kindly" bear responsibility for perpetuating the
obscene slaughter. If as much energy had been expended to stop the breeding
as it has been on controlling and killing the excess, the holocaust would
long ago have ended.

If past experience serves as a guide, many will view these words as
unfairly harsh and critical. Viewed in the face of hundreds of millions of
healthy dogs and cats destroyed in this century, my criticism is overly
genteel. During the past few years, I have witnessed more anger from the
Shelter Establishment directed at critics than the grotesque slaughter, and
this sorrowful lack of priority and proportion is indicative of a malignancy
in the soul of our movement.

The salient question is: How did we ever buy into the "homeless equals
suffering equals killing equals kindness" rationale? Normally, if the
protector of other beings became the executioner, people of conscience would
vehemently protest until this aberration was corrected. That didn’t happen
in our movement, however, because the concept of animal liberation hadn’t
been established yet – and "clean cages" and "merciful death" was the
prevailing definition of compassion for shelter animals.

With the advent of the animal liberation movement, this "welfarist"
mentality was challenged by those touting the "rights" of nonhumans. As it
turned out, though, this liberation ethic never reached companion animals.
Why? There weren’t any "bad guys" to take issue with, as the majority of
companion animals were dying in our own shelters.

So we railed at furriers, animal farmers, hunters, vivi-ectors, and all
the rest for killing healthy beings, but humane societies and SPCA's weren’t
held accountable for finding non-lethal solutions to overpopulation because
they were us. Animal rights activists looked the other way, and this "free
pass" given to shelters set the stage for companion animals to be the
forgotten species of the animal liberation movement.

How revealing that our adversaries recognize the hypocrisy of this tragic
omission, but we continue to wear incestuous blinders when it comes to
double standards in our own movement. The American Trapper stated that our
movement’s "expertise is, quite simply, the killing of the overabundance of
pets. Nothing more." Who can deny the hideous reality that we take more
lives each year in our shelters than we save in our other noble pursuits!

How did we ever buy into the "homeless equals suffering equals killing
equals kindness" rationale?•

What our movement refuses to see is that the killing only serves to
perpetuate the tragedy, as it eliminates the need for society to find
compassionate, non--lethal alternatives. Had we repudiated the killing of
healthy beings for population control as forcefully as we stigmatized fur,
comprehensive breeding restriction ordinances would be commonplace across
the country – lifted only as individual communities reached zero killing.
Why should the public take the slaughter seriously when those who speak for
animals are operating the slaughterhouses?

Regardless of the legal name on SPCA and humane society shelters, each of
our names appears on these buildings – and, due to our silent complicity, we
are all morally culpable for the stacks of bodies. That silence can no
longer continue. Either our movement joins together to end this insanity, or
we continue being angels of death masquerading in humane clothing.

This article was originally published in Animals’ Voice in 1990. Ed Duvin,
often referred to as the "father" of the no-kill movement, is known for his
writing and public speaking on the humane movement and other social change
movements, as well as his extensive nonprofit consulting. Ed has served as
the associate director of In Defense of Animals, the driving force behind
the creation of the Center for Respect of Life and Environment, and founder
of Project ZERO (which is committed to achieving a new ethic for companion
animals) and Walking the Walk (which promotes management standards).
________________________________________________________________________________________

EVERY TEN SECONDS AN ANIMAL IS BEATEN OR ABUSED. THIS DOESN'T INCLUDED
ALL THE ANIMALS IN SLAUGHTERHOUSES, THE FUR INDUSTRY AND ENTERTAINMENT
BUSINESS.